To Win or “Play Beautiful”?

Of course the best choice would be for our team to play beautiful football AND win, but in the end I’d rather see us win. The great teams of the 70s managed to do both but just fell short. I think if we play beautiful football while also making sure to play some defense we’ll achieve our goal.

Keep the faith!

Definately. Brazil are living proof thats its possible. I was thinking of Greece at Euro 2004. What a boring way to win a trophy.

Posted from  United States

Of course winning is the ultimate reward. In 1994 we were not very proud about our team, but the joy they provided for us was absolutely huge.

If you can win playing beautifully, even better!!!

Winning is only aim of a game. Attacking or beautiful game can be flourish only when victorious.Sticking to pressuring can’t always be solution, especially when you are leading.
Orange has learned Twice for not holding the advantage firm.Van Gaal was the first in 2002Wc qualifying rounds.
He sub: Hesselbank for Zenden while 2-0 up, to raise attack.Defensive failure made 2-2 at the end.
The stake was exit from qualifying rounds. Advocaat did the same in 2004 while 2-1 up again.
If it was Mourinho he will surely switched into counter attack game letting the opponent take more risk and take advantage on that.
I think Netherlands has many swift and smart players like Robbens, Persie, Vaart.. for an effective counter attack game.
Both Pressuring game and counter attack game with resillient defence could be attractive.Winning way is essence while the beautiful play come as esthetics.

Posted from  Myanmar

You’re right about counterattacking. The Dutch are a very quick team. I think of the Qualifier against Finland. Two very quick counterattacking goals. Our defence is not that experienced though so I’m not sure we should put too much of a burden on them.

What do the Dutch do well? Possess the ball in midfield and attack.

Posted from  United States

Glad that I found this site. Am a huge Oranje fan based in San Francisco, USA.

To answer your question, I’m thirsty for victory after 1988 - it’s been a long wait, we have been really good side in Euro and World Cups between ‘92 to ‘04, so for this year, I don’t mind “effective” football as long as we can lift the trophy.

Let’s face it, even if we play 1-1 games and win on penalties, our football will always be prettier than the German’s.

GO ORANJE!

Posted from  United States

Hi guys,

For a portuguese, I believe there’s no possible comparison between your team and the germans. As far is technique is concerned but not just that. Ask around who do people think is better or who do people prefer to watch… Being dutch I imagine there’s not a lot of distance. But as a portuguese… “Nobody” likes to see Germany. Maybe now, with Klinsman and the new players. Let’s see.

If there weren’t teams like Italy (or Greece), any team could always play pretty and still get a fair chance of winning.

I live in NL, so 2 years ago I’ve listened to that story with the substitution in the match agains Cze. Millions of times. There’s something I’ve been wanting to say, ever since, to all the dutch:

your team played much better (in the tournement) than the credit given by the commun dutch citizen. PLUS, in my humble vision of things, there was nothing wrong with THAT substitution. Czech was growing and you had an advantage to defend and you were playing good, balthough not consistently. Not as a block. Not solidly. But still good. Who in their right minds would say you played bad? CZE also started playing better - they did - and they are, as we all know, very, very strong. At least, this is how I see it.

Posted from  Netherlands

I do think the substitution was the problem. I understand sacrificing attacking power for defensive stability but Advocaat took off their BEST attacking player and put on 32 year old Paul Bosvelt, a player who could not cope with the speed and strength of the Czechs.

Posted from  United States

I understand your argument. We don’t know if Bosvelt was indeed what the team needed. We’ll never know.

But one cannot simply say replacing a (young) winger by an (experienced) midfielder = play more defensive. Putting a new player, fresh, in the core would arguably help make the team solid and control the enemy better.

Anyway, attack is a good way of defending a 2-1 lead. I agree. But remember, there was also another team on the pitch. The subst had, in my mind, to do with that. Not with yourselves.

Cze is not - as you might know, because NED keeps meeting CZE - just another team. The fact you were playing good and attacking and etc doesn’t mean that at that time they weren’t the better team. If you already have 2-1 lead, why open your field totally? HOL’s weak spot was defense at the time. I mean defending with attack IS NOT the same as innocently put 5 or 6 men ahead of the ball, leaving your “core” ungarded.

Anyway, I just feel the dutch found an easy scape-goat with that substitution. It’s your team, so I’ll keep quiet.

By the way Mike, I’m from Portugal but live in Nederalnd currently.

Posted from  Netherlands